763 F.Supp.3d 723
D. Maryland2025Background
- On January 20, 2025, President Donald J. Trump issued Executive Order 14160, which would deny citizenship by birth to certain U.S.-born children whose mothers are unlawfully in the U.S. or temporarily present and whose fathers are not citizens or lawful permanent residents.
- Plaintiffs include two immigrant advocacy organizations (CASA, Inc. and ASAP) and five pregnant women lacking permanent legal status but expecting to give birth in the U.S.
- Plaintiffs allege violations of the Fourteenth Amendment's Citizenship Clause and the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), seeking a preliminary injunction to stop the Order.
- The government argued plaintiffs lacked a cause of action and had an alternate remedy under the INA for challenging citizenship determinations.
- The district court considered whether to enjoin enforcement of the Executive Order pending litigation of the merits.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Judicial review of executive order | Federal courts may enjoin unconstitutional executive action; facial constitutional challenge is proper | Only specific INA procedures (8 U.S.C. §1503(a)) allow review of citizenship claims; exclusive remedy | Plaintiffs' constitutional claim is reviewable in district court; Section 1503(a) is not exclusive or applicable here |
| Interpretation of Fourteenth Amendment Citizenship Clause | Wong Kim Ark and established precedent guarantee birthright citizenship to nearly all born on U.S. soil except narrow classes; Order violates this | Fourteenth Amendment does not grant citizenship if parents lack lawful status or are temporarily present; parental domicile/allegiance matters | Wong Kim Ark is binding: birthright citizenship covers all born on U.S. soil except diplomats/hostile occupiers/tribal exception |
| Irreparable harm and equities | Denial of citizenship constitutes irreparable harm; risk of statelessness, loss of rights, separation from parents; public interest favors injunction | Harm is speculative; children could gain status via other means; government/public interest favors enforcing immigration law | Denial of citizenship is grave, immediate, and irreparable; upholding constitutional rights and status quo is in public interest |
| Scope of injunctive relief | Nationwide injunction necessary due to nationwide reach of policy and organizational plaintiffs' members in all states | Only limited/localized relief warranted or no injunction | Nationwide injunction is appropriate and required to provide complete relief and maintain uniform national citizenship rules |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (binding precedent that birth on U.S. soil grants citizenship except for narrow historical exceptions)
- Bell v. Hood, 327 U.S. 678 (federal courts' jurisdiction to enjoin unconstitutional acts)
- Winter v. Natural Resources Defense Council, 555 U.S. 7 (preliminary injunction standard)
- Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer, 343 U.S. 579 (judicial review of executive orders)
- Franklin v. Massachusetts, 505 U.S. 788 (presidential action is subject to constitutional review)
- Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, 542 U.S. 507 (Court recognized U.S. citizenship by birth despite parents' temporary visa status)